Gries,
The 100/2.8 is similar to the 85/2 in size and performance. You can't go
wrong with either And the 100/2.8's cheaper.
You might also consider the 135's. Both the 2.8 and 3.5 are very nice and
inexpensive. This are pictures taken with the 135/2.8 (SC, Silver-nose)
that I really like:
http://www.skipwilliams.com/gallery/local1/3.htm
http://www.skipwilliams.com/gallery/local1/4.htm
http://www.skipwilliams.com/gallery/family1/1.htm
Re the Zuiko 2x, all results IMO are less than stellar. I'd only consider
the 2x in a pinch. In fact I'm probably going to sell mine, I NEVER use it
(at least not for the past 7 years).
Skip
From: "gries" <gries@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] 100/2 vs. 85/2 in sharpness
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:58:00 -0500
Dear enablers:
I am looking to purchase (in the near future) a short telephoto for
capturing architectural details. I was figuring that the 85/2 would do
since this is the focal length that seems to look the best to my eye,
but now you have me concerned about the sharpness. Any opinions on
which one to get? What is the relative performance of the 100/2.8, and
how does the 85/2 perform w/ the 2x-A? any and all help is appreciated.
Thanks!
gries
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|